Sadanand Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 10 October, 2017

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24867 of 2012
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -84 Year- 2009 Thana -null District- MADHEPURA

1. Sadanand Yadav S/o Late Ram Lakhan Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur,
P.S.- Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani

2. Shibo Devi W/o Sambhu Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur, P.S.-
Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani

3. Sambhu Yadav S/o Sadanand Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur, P.S.-
Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani

4. Jamuna Devi W/o Sadanand Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur, P.S.-
Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani
…. …. Petitioners

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ranjana Devi, Wife of Late Shyam Yadav, Resident of Village Pathar Patti,
P.S. Kewati, District Darbhanga. At present Village Dahi Pet Dih (Sohrai) P.S.
Sakari, District Madhubani
…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar, APP
For O.P. No.2 : None

Date: 10-10-2017

The petitioners have filed this application under Section

482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of cognizance order dated 03.02.2012,

passed by learned CJM, Madhubani in Kaluwahi P.S. Case No.84 of

2009 (T.R. No.3365 of 2012) by which the learned CJM, Madhubani

has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 323, 341,

504, 420, 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case, as levelled in the FIR, is that the

informant was married with the son of the petitioner no.1 a decade

back and four years prior to lodging of the case her husband died. It is

alleged that while her husband was alive, all accused used to torture
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24867 of 2012 dt.10-10-2017

2 /3

her in connection with further demand of dowry and after death of her

husband they have forcibly got the signature of the informant and

received the insurance amount given by the insurance company in her

favour as she was nominee in the insurance policy. It is also alleged

that she was ousted from matrimonial home keeping her all


3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

petitioner nos.1 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law and other

petitioners are the brother of the informant’s husband and his wife. It

is submitted that in fact the informant developed illicit affair with

another man and the family members used to object, so she lodged

this false case, even during investigation the independent witnesses

have not supported the case and her children are still living with the

petitioners, so this case was filed maliciously. Contrary to that the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is

allegation of subjecting the informant to cruelty by the petitioners and

the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet.

4. Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of

the records, the Court finds that it is not that the ingredients of the

offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not disclosed

in the allegation levelled in the FIR as there appears allegation of

cruelty alleged to be committed by the petitioners. As far as the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24867 of 2012 dt.10-10-2017

3 /3

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no

independent witnesses have supported the allegation during the

investigation, that may be raised at the time of framing of the charge

to show that there exists no sufficient ground for proceeding in the


5. There is no ground for interfering with the order

impugned. The quashing application accordingly, stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J.)

Uploading Date 11.10.2017
Transmission 11.10.2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *